Recently, the number of network connections providing high-speed access has been growing. The deployment of these connections has typically been over networks using copper digital subscriber lines (“DSL”) and existing Community Antenna Television systems (“CATV”), and in some cases wireless links. The demand by consumers for these technologies is based on their desire for faster service than is provided by dial-up modem systems. While traditional dial-up modems typically have a rated download speed of 56,000 bits per second (“bps”), DSL modems can provide up to 1,500,000 bps and cable modems can theoretically provide up to 2,500,000 bps. Thus, these two technologies have the capability to provide up to about 50 times the access speed of a dial-up modem system.
However, another technology known in the art as Fiber-To-The-Home (“FTTH”), can provide 155,000,000 bps or higher, or at least 100 times the download speed of current high-speed Internet technologies. FTTH typically uses Ethernet technology, which is known in the art, to achieve these high transfer rates. Technology referred sometimes referred to as Fast Ethernet can provide in the range of 100 Mbps and an even newer technology can provide speeds in the billion bits-per-second range. Appropriately, this technology is often referred to in the art as Gigabit Ethernet. For present purposes, Fast Ethernet refers to technology that transmits data in the 100 Mbps magnitude range and gigabit Ethernet refers to technology that transmits in the range of a billion bps or higher.
Obviously, the great advantage of FTTH is speed. The downside is that currently the cost is higher than traditional telephony (sometimes referred to as “plain old telephone service”, or “POTS”) or CATV systems, which are the most common networks for implementing the Internet.
However, as with all technologies, the cost of FTTH is falling as the deployment rate increases. Much like CATV during its early stages of deployment, whether FTTH is available will increasingly be a factor in the calculus for making a home buying decision. This is because not only is the speed of Internet use increased, but also because other services, such as voice-over-IP, video-over-IP and high definition television (“HDTV”), will be more readily available. This may ultimately reduce a subscriber's costs, as all of these services may be offered by a single provider on one incoming fiber optic cable, or drop cable, to a subscriber's house or place of business.
Although FTTH is currently being deployed, its development and deployment are still in their infancy. Accordingly, as is typically the case when new technology is in the early stages of its life, many vendors, in the spirit of competition, are developing new products to implement FTTH. And, as is also typical, these various products are often incompatible with one another. For example, a different method and protocol for transmitting and receiving Internet data signals may be employed from those used for transmitting and receiving HDTV or other video signals.
When this situation occurs, a separate piece of equipment is typically required for decoding and encoding a signal received or sent over the drop cable before the signal is recognizable by the piece of equipment for which it was intended. For example, a television set may require a set-top-box for decoding a HDTV signal before it is presented to the television set, while a personal computer may require a cable modem for interfacing with the network. This has been the state of affairs for a while, since telephony companies traditionally have provided services on copper twisted pair cables and CATV network providers have typically delivered services on typically coaxial electrical conductors.
Although subscribers have grown accustomed to the typical scenario of multiple providers for different services, such as, for example, a cable company providing CATV services, a separate Internet service provider and a separate telephone company providing telephony services, this may not be a desirable scenario for the subscribers or the providers. A subscriber may not enjoy making separate monthly payments to each of the providers. Furthermore, the subscriber probably laments the cost of the service while making the payments. Many of the providers would like to offer more than only one service, i.e. a telephone company may wish to compete with a cable company by providing television programming.
Such competition would, over time, reduce the cost to the subscriber of the television programming and increase the quality of the programming. One of the reasons the providers have been slow to offer services outside of their core services is uncertainty of laws and regulations. Only recently has the United States Congress, and federal agencies and courts, begun passing legislation, promulgating rules and issuing decisions that relax previous prohibitions against a single service provider offering more than their traditionally core service. Such developments in the law and regulations are typically slow to formulate. Thus, providers have been reluctant to test the legal waters, and therefore reluctant to make the investment in infrastructure and technology that would spur equipment makers to develop new technologies and products.
However, as the regulatory oversight by the federal and state governments declines, more and more companies are beginning to offer composite services. This requires that technology be available to facilitate the offering of these services.
One technological hurdle that exists is the one previously discussed in that many equipment makers rely on different technologies that are not always compatible with one another and with every network technology used by the various providers. For example, an optical network provider may employ 100baseF technology in its network, while a coaxial network provider may employ 100baseT technology. Similarly, one optical equipment manufacturer may make equipment configured for multimode 100 Mbps Ethernet networking, another for single mode 100 Mbps Ethernet networking, another for 1310 nm gigabit Ethernet networking and another for ITU grid gigabit Ethernet networking. Furthermore, subscribers may receive cable modem services from CATV providers that conform to the DOCSIS standard. This equipment must be able to transmit and receive a signal and convert it to format compatible with the various types of subscriber equipment devices, yet still be relatively inexpensive.
To date, the architecture primarily used by network operators is the Passive Optical Network (“PON”). A PON typically aggregates 16 to 32 subscribers per fiber at an aggregation point, which is typically a splitter or two splitters at different locations. The range of such a system is limited to less than 20 km, thereby ensuring the need for a network of central office (“CO”) locations throughout the serving area.
Parameters that are of prime importance to network operators contemplating the deployment of FTTH networks include cost per subscriber, network scalability, which relates to future proofing and investment lifecycles. A system that can be easily scaled to offer more bandwidth or serve more subscribers is more likely to remain competitive in the future as new services are introduced to the growing community of subscribers with broadband access.
Another important parameter is that of aggregation efficiency; in other words, the number of subscribers that can be served over a single fiber. This is because the costs in the CO/head-end and the long-haul part (portion between CO/head end and splitter or local switch node) of the network are directly related to the aggregation efficiency. An operator will typically have to build additional fiber infrastructure within a service area as customers and services are added that require increases in bandwidth over existing infrastructure. An efficient aggregator is one who can reduce the need to upgrade portions of the longer-haul part of the fiber network, thereby substantially reducing the network costs associated with network deployment vis-à-vis his or her competitors. Thus, there is a need for a method and architecture that provides scalability that, for example, eliminates or postpones the need to install additional fiber to facilitate additional bandwidth.
In addition to the above, another important parameter that concerns network operators is the need for building locations in a serving area. Due to range limitations and/or lack of suitable outside-plant equipment, many competing architectures need multiple ‘secondary hub’ or CO locations throughout the serving area. The processes and costs associated with identifying, acquiring and preparing suitable locations for building secondary hubs can be extremely burdensome, especially for new or small operators, as they typically involve real estate negotiations, procurement of local-authority-permits and substantial construction costs to build from scratch or modify a given location. These burdens place limits on the speed and magnitude of new service deployment, and can be especially fatal for small operators who need to quickly achieve a critical mass of paying subscribers. Equipment suitable for use as outside plant, i.e. suitable for outdoor or underground use, and with sufficient optical range to reach remote single-serving locations, greatly reduces the need for multiple building locations. Thus, there is a need for a device that facilitates network implementation without the need for many closely located buildings for secondary hubs.
Another concern for network service providers is the prevention of hacking and address spoofing, activities both of which can render the network at least temporarily out of service. Thus, there is a need for a method and architecture for preventing address spoofing and hacking.